From left to right, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, Liberal Leader Mark Carney, New Democratic Leader Jagmeet Singh and Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet participate in the English-language federal leaders' debate in Montreal, on April 17.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
There were any number of questions asked this week at the French and English federal leaders debates, but the most fundamental one went unasked, and unanswered: Why are we here?
In other words, what is the purpose of the federal debates, a quasi-institution made all the more institutional in recent years by the arrival of the Leaders’ Debates Commission, set up by the Trudeau government ahead of the 2019 campaign?
We would argue that the purpose is singular: to provide voters a window to peer through in order to better inform their decision on who would make the best prime minister. All other considerations, including kind but misguided attempts to include parties with no chance of victory, are secondary.
Which brings us to the increasingly farcical disarray of the debate process (a disarray that thankfully was rendered invisible to viewers by moderators Patrice Roy and Steve Paikin).
The time for the French debate was changed a day prior to reduce overlap with a (long scheduled) Montreal Canadiens game. On Wednesday, hours before the debate, the commission rescinded its invitation for the Green Party to participate. And then there was even more chaos on Thursday, with media scrums after the English-language debate cancelled at the last minute. Lost in all the tumult was the misplaced decision to have both debates in Montreal.
In excluding the Greens, the commission did the right thing for the wrong reasons in the wrong way at the wrong time. The commission stated that its decision hinged on statements that the Greens had deliberately declined to run candidates in some ridings to avoid vote splits that would favour the Conservatives. But the reason that the party should have been excluded is that it managed to only nominate candidates in 232 ridings, far short of the 343 it had promised, or the 309 required under the commission’s criteria.
That the commission waited so long to act is indefensible. It was clear for all to see on April 7 that the Greens had fallen far short of the 309-riding threshold; they should have gotten the boot then. Instead, the commission insisted that its decision was final, right up until it was not. Wednesday’s minidrama was entirely unnecessary.
But more broadly, the Greens never had any business being on the stage on the first place. Their presence has been, and would have been, a distraction from the main point – who is the best candidate to form a government? Either the NDP or the Bloc could hold the balance power in a minority Parliament, and so should also be part of the debate.
Some, like former Conservative aide Dimitri Soudas, have argued that the commission should be scrapped and that private broadcasters return to hosting the events. That would go too far, although more debates, with varying formats – including outside the election cycle – would be a positive step. (On that front, the commission should ensure that the English-language debate(s) for the next election take place in the West.)
In an era of media fragmentation, the leaders debates are a rare communal moment in politics. And it is difficult for politicians to refuse to participate, unlike with a private-sector equivalent. Liberal Leader Mark Carney, for instance, declined to participate in a proposed French-language debate with private broadcaster TVA, saying he was unwilling to appear if the Green Party was not also invited.
But the debates commission needs reform. That should start with appointing a new commissioner; that office has been vacant since David Johnston stepped down in March, 2023, to become a special rapporteur on foreign interference.
The criteria for participation needs to be simplified: official party status in the House of Commons and support of at least 4 per cent in national polls. That would necessarily mean that independent MPs sitting in the House, or parties yet to win seats, do not make the cut. But it would ensure that voters are given the clearest window possible to see the next prime minister.
And that, after all, is the question.